4. For the purposes of this analysis, the responses "not
answered" and "don't know" are not included in the graphs. These
answers were largely registered as the respondent felt that they
could not comment on fish farming as a shellfish grower, and vice
versa, or the respondent had no locus in relation to the
question.

Response analysis

5. The consultation sought comments on eighteen questions
concerning amendments to
PDRs for
fin fish and shellfish developments in Scotland.

Modifications to Existing Class of
PDR

Class 21A - placement, relocation or installation of a
cage

6.
Question 1 - Do you agree that the fin fish cage
size and area restrictions which prevent
PDR use for
replacement or relocation of an existing cage should be
removed?

7. The majority of respondents (45%), predominantly from the
industry
, favour removal of cage size and area
restrictions, with only 24%, mostly individuals, against. 31% of
respondents chose not to answer or answered "don't know".

8. Those favouring this proposal felt that it was logical and
reasonable, allowing flexibility and promoting efficiency, enabling
developers to undertake routine operations more easily.

9. Those not in favour think that no biomass control, would
allow uncontrolled expansion of the industry. They are also
concerned that the cumulative landscape, visual and biodiversity
impacts of re-siting large cages, is not being properly considered,
with disease and sea lice transfer impacts from the salmon farming
industry on wild fish also being raised. It was also suggested that
planning applications should cover faecal build up below cages
affecting water quality, and that aquaculture companies discuss
implications for safe navigation with the Royal Yachting
Association of Scotland.

Conclusion

10. We propose that this amendment to
PDR is
introduced. Removal of the limits will benefit fish farms with pen
circumferences of greater than 100m (or greater than 796 square
metres where pens are not circular) which are currently not
permitted to replace or relocate pens under
PDR. The
amendment will give these sites the same provision as sites with
smaller equipment. We do not consider that the removal of cage size
and area restrictions infer any environmental impacts. Removal of
these limits will allow operational flexibility with regards to pen
replacement at larger sites.

11.
Question 2 - Do you agree that prior notification
should not be required for fin fish pens replaced, in the same
location, with a fin fish cage of the same size, colour and
design?

12. The majority of respondents (58%), predominantly from the
industry, agree that prior notification should not be required,
with only 17%, mostly individuals, against. 24% of respondents
chose not to answer or answered "don't know".

13. Supporters welcomed this logical, reasonable, and efficient
approach, again, enabling developers to undertake routine
operations easily. Respondents suggested it would be better to have
one class covering replacement of cages irrespective of cage size
or farm surface area, with another class covering adding additional
equipment. It was also suggested that as technology develops, there
should be scope to replace cages with newer and different design
types without prior notification.

14. Those not favouring this proposal do not want a change of
fin fish species to be automatically permitted, and raised concerns
about smolt rearing in migratory systems, genetic interactions with
wild salmon, eutrophication of water bodies used for rearing cages
and their outflow streams, and the environmental impacts of fish
farm chemicals. Use of acoustic deterrent devices (
ADDs) on fish
farms, and whether these proposed changes will be appropriately
managed to mitigate impacts on marine mammals, was also raised.

Conclusion

15. We recommend that the requirement for prior approval for
'like for like' replacements is removed. Replacement of certain
equipment, including pens, is a routine operational requirement on
fish farms. Removal of prior notification removes an administrative
burden for routine replacement of equipment.

Class 21 C - Replacement of top net or support

16.
Question 3 - Do you agree that prior notification
should not be required for the purpose of replacing an existing fin
fish cage top net or support with a top net or support of the same
size, colour and design?

17. The majority of respondents (58%), across all categories
agreed with this proposal, with only one individual against. 38% of
respondents chose not to answer or answered "don't know".

18. Those in agreement with this proposal consider that it
enables routine operations to be undertaken in a logical,
reasonable and efficient way. However, the type, design, etc. of
equipment needs to be clearly identified and independently checked
(although it was not specified who should do the checking).
Grouping all replacements of equipment of the same size, colour and
design which do not require prior notification into one class was
suggested. Thickness of top nets is an important aspect of the
net's visual presence and this should be able to be replaced "like
for like" under
PDR without
prior notification. With advances in cage equipment technology and
improvements in knowledge around predator exclusion, there is a
current need for this operational flexibility.

Conclusion

19. We recommend that the requirement for prior approval for
'like for like' replacements is removed. Replacement of certain
equipment on fish and shellfish farms is a routine operational
requirement. Removal of prior notification removes an
administrative burden for replacement of equipment.

20.
Question 4 - Do you agree that the limit for use
of
PDR of 2.5
metres for equipment to support the fin fish cage top net should be
removed from this class of
PDR?

21. The majority of respondents (45%), predominantly from the
industry agreed with this proposal, with 17% against. 38 % of
respondents chose not to answer or answered "don't know".

22. Those favouring this change think it will remove unnecessary
burdens on developers, enabling rapid introduction of innovative
technology. The industry in particular appreciate that overall
considerations will be dealt with at the planning consent stage,
and the limit removal will allow future flexibility in
accommodating innovation of cage equipment and supports.
Respondents also supported the prior notification requirement for
any replacement top net not of the same size, colour and
design.

23. Those opposing this proposal are concerned that higher nets
increase total net area, and this, and any change to finer nets
could increase environmental impacts, particularly the risk of
nocturnal bird collision and entanglement. There is also concern
about changes to visual impacts in designated landscapes.

Conclusion

24. We recommend that this amendment is introduced. The impacts
of the top net and top net support, including height, will be
evaluated during the planning process. The safeguard of prior
notification will remain for changes which are not 'like for
like'.

Class 21E - placing a long line

25.
Question 5 - Do you agree that shellfish farms
should be able to replace existing long lines, in the same or a
different location, with a long line of the same size, colour and
design as those already on site?

26. The majority of respondents (66%) agree with this proposal,
with only one public body against. 31% of respondents chose not to
answer or answered "don't know".

27. Those in agreement with this proposal state that it is
unreasonable and not a planning function to consult each time a
relatively minor replacement operation is carried out, as line
replacement is a vital part of shellfish farm maintenance, enabling
routine operations to be undertaken during production cycles.
Respondents agree that placing long lines of the same size, colour
and design but in a different location should require prior
notification as planning areas for shellfish farms can be large.
However, there is concern about existing farm boundaries as Crown
Estate leases can cover extensive areas - using different locations
may raise site boundary questions.

28. If the development is in, or near to, a designated site,
there may also be environmental, visual, and navigation issues to
consider, so those in favour also think that prior notification
should be required where the change is not like for like, and where
the proposed amendment allow lines to be placed closer to the edge
of a designated site. These issues should be highlighted in
guidance, prompting local authorities to seek advice from
SNH.

29. Those opposing are also concerned that cetaceans can be
damaged by entanglement with fixed ropes in the sea, including fish
farm moorings.

Conclusion

30. Long lines are required to be replaced on a shellfish farm
on a cyclical basis. We therefore recommend that this amendment is
introduced. The change will give shellfish long line operators the
same right to replace and maintain equipment as is permitted for
fin fish pen sites under
PDR.

31.
Question 6 - Do you agree that replacement of
shellfish farm long lines which are 'like for like' and placed in
the same location should be permitted without prior
notification?

32. The majority of respondents (69%), agreed with this
proposal, be required, with only one individual, against. 28% of
respondents chose not to answer or answered "don't know".

33. Those in agreement state that it is not a planning function,
and unreasonable to consult on each minor replacement carried out,
but that oversight should be exercised in every case. This proposed
change is also particularly welcome at a time when public resources
and local authorities are stretched. While it was agreed that
placing a line in a different location requires prior notification
as there may be environmental, visual, or navigation issues to
consider, the majority agreed that prior notification should not be
required for long lines replaced in the same location, of the same
size, colour and design. Respondents consider that permission has
already been granted so there is no need for further planning
input, and this will enable routine operations to be undertaken
during production cycles.

Conclusion

34. We recommend that this amendment is introduced. This will
remove an administrative burden and allow routine operational long
line replacements to take place unhindered.

Additional Lines

35. Class 21E allows the placing or assembly of a long line for
use in shellfish farming within the area of an existing fish farm.
Development is not currently permitted under this class where the
surface areas of the waters covered by the long line together with
the original equipment be either - (a) more than 500 square metres
greater; or (b) more than 10% greater, than the surface area of the
waters covered by the original equipment.

36.
Question 7 - Do you agree with the change from the
shell fish farm current area limits described above to a scaled
line approach which uses lines of equal length to those currently
on site?

37. The majority of respondents (45%), agreed with this change,
with only 17% against. 38% of respondents chose not to answer or
answered "don't know".

38. Those agreeing with this proposal think this a welcome
improvement to the current limiting position. This will also give
scope for greater efficiencies in a defined area, with scope to
permit the addition of long lines more than once, if not within a
defined period of 5 years, and within the original farm boundary.
There is concern about possible increased environmental carrying
capacity following an increased concentration of lines, but
respondents agree that this proposal is acceptable if the lines are
of the same colour, design, and length.

39. Respondents also state that developers should be allowed to
fully utilise the area of the lease, depending on requirements, as
these vary depending on species or purpose to ensure the future
success of this 'fledgling industry'. As the industry has
developed, recognition has been given to some sites for spat
production and others as good growth areas.

40. Respondents think the scaled line approach, and lines of
equal length were more practical than current area limits, with the
potential to allow uptake of
PDR. Again,
it was noted that this proposal would enable routine operations to
be undertaken during production cycles, but that placing lines in
different locations may require prior notification due to
environmental, visual, or navigational issues, particularly in
conservation areas.

41. Those opposing are also concerned that cetaceans can be
damaged by entanglement with fixed ropes in the sea, including fish
farm moorings.

Conclusion

42. We recommend that this amendment is introduced. The current
area restriction often results in permission for a line which is
less than equal in length to those currently on site and has led to
limited uptake of this class of
PDR. Farms
which utilise long lines usually gain permission for lines of equal
length. Removal of the current requirements and introduction of a
scaled approach will ensure an even footprint is maintained.

43.
Question 8 - Do you agree with the chosen scaled
approach to addition of shellfish farm long lines [less than or
equal to 6 lines = 1 additional long line, 7 or more = up to 2
additional long lines]?

44. The majority of respondents (41%), agreed with this
proposal, with only 7%, against. Over half (52%) chose not to
answer or answered "don't know".

45. This scaled approach to adding long lines is well supported,
with the majority agreeing this proposal reasonable and sensible, a
logical basis for expansion, and that it is aesthetically pleasing
for complete lines to be permitted rather than an artificially
constrained limit.

46. Respondents stated that the current appliance of the Town
and Country Planning Act is detrimental to shellfish farming,
particularly in the West Highlands. Respondents also felt that
prior notification for additional lines should remain as this will
permit local authorities to consider visual impacts, the carrying
capacity of the water body, and potential environmental impacts.
Again, there is concern about increased environmental carrying
capacity following increased line concentration.

47. Respondents welcomed that as prior notification will be
required in all cases, this will allow biological carrying
capacity, visual impacts etc. to be assessed, and agreed that this
PDR should
only be available for single use if for exactly the same reasons.
It was also noted that the new criteria would take any increase in
equipment area under
PDR above
10% (minimum 16.6% for 6 lines or less). One individual suggested
extending the proposed scale to consider larger farms.

48. Those opposing are concerned that cetaceans can be damaged
by entanglement with fixed ropes in the sea, including fish farm
moorings.

Conclusion

49. We recommend that a scaled approach is introduced. However
the comments made with regards to the increase in equipment area
for small sites are noted. Consideration will be given to the
appropriate scale increase and ensuring legislation is future
proofed with regards to larger sites.

Class 21F - Change of Use (Species)

50.
Question 9 - Do you agree that shellfish farms
should be able to change the species farmed under
PDR as
described above, with the caveat that no change in equipment is
permitted under this class?

51. The majority of respondents (59%), agreed with this
proposal, be required, with only 17% against. 24% of respondents
chose not to answer or answered "don't know".

52. Respondents agreed that this proposal increases flexibility,
and promotes expansion, diversity and innovation, allowing the use
of newer systems (i.e. Ortac). Shellfish farms should be able to
change species farmed under
PDR (with
prior notification) but as a change of shellfish species requires
changing equipment, this
PDR class
will be utilised, along with a full planning application. When
changing from scallops to mussels there can be significant changes
to visual impacts, as the number and size of surface floats is
greater on mussel lines. One respondent asked that the current
PDRs under
Class 21F (1)(b) and (1)(c) be reconsidered:
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Fish-Shellfish/18716/fish-farm/PDRGuidance

53. Those opposing this proposal had concerns about allowing the
introduction non-native species into the wild (an offence under the
Wildlife Scotland Act 2011), and that biosecurity implications for
containment need to be considered and monitored. Another respondent
thinks the caveat that no change in equipment is permitted is too
prescriptive. Some felt that the wild fish interests should have
been consulted much earlier in this process, and that farming
Atlantic salmon requires full planning consent, and should not be
considered under
PDRs.

54. Some were concerned that both shellfish and fin fish farming
have potentially severe impacts on the natural environment through
the release of non- native species or non-local strains and the
transfer of disease from farmed to wild stock.

Conclusion

55. We recommend that the additional shellfish options for
change of use (species) options are introduced. The ability to
utilise this
PDR was
questioned if there is no permissible change in subsurface in
equipment. We will consider this further in finalising the amending
Order and in any associated guidance.

Proposed New Class of
PDR

56.
Question 10 - Do you agree that fish farms should
be able to replace a mooring or anchor with a mooring or anchor of
the same size and design, in the same location, without prior
notification (European sites and
MPA will require
prior notification)?

57. The majority of respondents (72%), agreed with this
proposal, with only 13% against. 13% of respondents chose not to
answer or answered "don't know".

58. Those agreeing to the proposal agreed with this proposal
unless the farm was sited within a marine designated site, with
prior notification required, and wanted anchors and moorings to be
checked and replaced to ensure continued function as part of normal
routine operations.

59. Some respondents think the approval of an overall planning
consent and the creation of a planning boundary should cover the
subsequent placing of the necessary mooring and anchoring systems
needed, depending on the scale and nature of the development. They
agree that required equipment changes, and "like for like"
equipment replacement within the site boundary shouldn't require
prior notification. The granting of a planning consent and the
creation of a planning boundary should cover the subsequent placing
of the necessary mooring and anchoring systems necessary for the
development, as permitted.

60. This proposal was received as a logical reflection of
operational requirements, but some respondents think it should
cover both shellfish and "sea vegetable" farms. Mooring/anchoring
emergencies occur and operators must be prepared for such
eventualities, and it is vital for the safe and efficient operation
of any marine installation, regardless of its location, that the
operators be permitted to change or enhance anchor systems as
required and without delay in a dynamic and highly volatile
environment. An operator should not have to apply for permission to
lay anchors, and there is no reason that protected sites should
require such notification.

Conclusion

61. We recommend that this amendment is introduced to allow
greater operational flexibility.

62.
Question 11 - Do you agree that fin fish farms
should be able to replace a mooring or anchor with a mooring or
anchor of a different design in the same location, and that farms
should be permitted to relocate a mooring or anchor within its
boundary, with the condition of prior notification?

63. The majority of respondents (62%), agreed with this
proposal, be required, with 24%, against. 14% of respondents chose
not to answer or answered "don't know".

64. Those agreeing with this proposal think prior notification
only necessary within a conservation area, as there is no added
value giving prior notification to the planning authority for
anchor placement unless there is a designation. Changes to the
mooring and anchoring system are operational necessities, and if
these are within the planning boundary, prior notification is
unnecessary. Such changes may also be needed to ensure site
security or to enable technical standards compliance. Some
respondents asked that prior notification be given for replacement
of anchors or equipment within site boundaries.

65. One respondent wanted prior notification for all, as there
may be issues in determining the mooring area unless the site has
had planning permission. There was also concern that cetaceans can
be damaged by entanglement with fixed ropes in the sea, including
fish farm moorings, and

67. Some respondents think prior notification is pointless, as
this action reflects operational norms, enabling updating with
modern, efficient designs. Farmers can't wait for notification to
replace anchors, when having to react quickly in extreme weather to
avoid loss of equipment and livestock, and ensure safe operation of
marine installations.

68. It was noted that that this proposal will allow replacement
of anchors and mooring within a mooring area, but not necessarily
in the same location. The new anchors and moorings could be
significantly distant from their old positions, resulting in
surface equipment being placed some distance from where it was
initially granted planning permission. It was also suggested that
it is not simply the anchor that causes navigation problems, but
the added marker or mooring buoys.

Conclusion

69. It is recommended that this amendment is introduced. It is
important that the local authority has an opportunity to assess
whether prior approval is required with regards to changed or
relocated equipment.

70.
Question 12 - Do you agree that replacement of a
fin fish cage net with a cage net of the same size, colour and
design, should be permitted by
PDR without
prior notification?

71. The majority of respondents (55%), agreed with this
proposal, be required, with only 17% against. 28% of respondents
chose not to answer or answered "don't know".

72. Those supporting this proposal stated that operational net
changes are routine throughout a production cycle, is not an issue
for the planning system. However, if a change in net size and/or
depth is needed, this is likely to require notification to other
regulatory bodies, particularly
SEPA as
part of a re-modelling of
CAR
consent. One respondent asked for the inclusion of changes to net
depth not associated with biomass increase (e.g. on welfare
grounds).

73. Respondents noted that the consultation document states that
changes to net depth/size or volume will not be permitted, but the
draft legislation paragraph 1 (b) of Class 21H allows for different
net size, with prior notification. Different net shape and colour
requires consideration on possible wildlife interactions
(entanglement etc.) but changes to overall size/volume shouldn't be
permitted under
PDR as this
has implications for on-site biomass.

74. Some respondents noted that the question does not match the
supporting text - the supporting text notes" we consider …of
the same or a difference colour and design" whilst the question
only asks about "same size, colour and design".
PDR for a
different colour and design of net as the replacement would not be
supported as it might breach a planning condition.

75. There was also concern that changes under this proposal will
be appropriately managed to mitigate impacts on marine mammals,
particularly concerning the use of acoustic deterrent devices (
ADDs) on fish
farms.

Conclusion

76. We agree that net changes are a routine operational
requirement for fish farms and should be permitted under
PDR. This
includes for net cleaning purposes, repairs and general maintenance
and to change mesh size during the growth cycle. This will not
permit a fish farm to affect its stocking density.

77.
Question 13 - Do you agree that secondary fin fish
net structures should be permitted by
PDR with
the requirement of prior notification to the local authority?

78. The majority of respondents (41%), agreed with this
proposal, with 28% against. 31% of respondents chose not to answer
or answered "don't know".

79. Those supporting this proposal, noted that prior
notification is necessary to assess wildlife and predator
interactions (in conjunction with
SNH),
particularly for farms located close to Natura sites.

80. Industry noted that these are minor additions and variations
to site equipment, developed alongside advancing technology and
improved containments, and again, not operations for consideration
by planning. It raised the issue of the current definition of
development as key to the type of equipment changes falling within
the planning system, and the need for a review of the definition of
"development" for fish farming. It was noted that secondary net
structures may not have been considered at the planning stage but
may be required for operational purposes, and prior notification
shouldn't be required where there are no conceivable impacts in
planning terms, e.g. Lice skirts, wrasse hides. Predator nets are
different, as there would be potential impacts to consider e.g.
entanglement risk). It was requested that this action be undertaken
without prior notification, allowing flexibility and innovation of
existing and future operational equipment. Another respondent
agreed to the proposal, providing the nets did not obstruct
navigation lights and marks.

81. Of those not supporting the proposal, some commented that
adding additional predator nets and other structures increases
entanglement risks to diving birds, particularly in conservation
areas. Changes could also affect the visual impact of the site,
particularly in conservation areas, and guidance should contain
mitigation measures. Others thought that this was a normal
operational activity with no requirement for prior notification,
and another was concerned with the use of acoustic deterrent
devices (
ADDs) on fish
farms, and whether these changes will be appropriately managed to
mitigate impacts on marine mammals.

Conclusion

82. We recommend that a secondary cage structure class is
introduced. We recognise that some secondary cage structure
additions, such as wrasse hides, may have less conceivable impacts
than the addition of other structures, such as predator nets. We
are currently considering whether it is necessary for all secondary
net structures to require prior notification or whether secondary
net structures can be suitably defined in the legislation. .

83.
Question 14 - Do you agree that shellfish farm
trestle sites should be permitted to replace trestles with trestles
of the same design without prior notification?

84. The majority of respondents (55%), agreed with this
proposal, be required, with 7% against. 38% of respondents chose
not to answer or answered "don't know".

85. Supporters of this proposal state that it falls within
normal operations, enabling equality with long line production
areas, although it was requested that the trestles be of the same
size, colour and design. This proposal would also allow utilisation
of new systems which have become available (i.e. Ortac). .
Respondents thought this proposal necessary for efficient site
operation, and to conserve public planning resources.

86. Those against the proposal thought that it demonstrated
unnecessary interference, as most sites are submerged from view - a
simple maximum unit could be permitted on a designated site
footprint. The industry will also suffer if growers are locked into
using old technology, and have to complete onerous and expensive
planning applications. If a farmer has to apply for planning
consent every time a development is trialled, it will discourage
innovation. Relocating trestles within the existing farm sites
should be permitted, as moving these alters the tidal flow and can
benefit the local environment.

Conclusion

87. We recommend that a Trestle class of
PDR is
introduced and that 'like for like' replacements should be
permitted without prior notification. This will allow shellfish
farmers to replace aging or damaged equipment without an
administrative burden.

88.
Question 15 - Do you agree that relocation of a
trestle within an existing shellfish farm boundary should be
permitted with the condition that the local authority receives
prior notification?

89. The majority of respondents (41%), agreed with this
proposal, be required, with 21%, against. 38% of respondents chose
not to answer or answered "don't know".

90. Supporters of this proposal think there is a need to assess
possible visual impacts with regard to relocation, so prior
notification is appropriate. Those with concerns about navigation
stated that unmarked trestles can be a hazard for shallow draft
vessels operating inshore, and consideration needs to be given on
how new positions will be communicated to other water users. Others
commented that this would give equality with mussel long lines. One
respondent supported the proposal of moving trestles within a site
without another stated that prior notice is not required, and there
should be freedom to place trestles anywhere in the site boundary -
the permit should simply give footprint and maximum density
. Prior notification was also considered
sufficient, as long as there are no visual impact concerns.

91. Those opposing state that trestles sometimes have to be
moved due to shifting sand banks, so it is impractical and
unreasonable to notify the local authority every time, if the
movements are within the permitted area of the farm. Others think
it would limit the ability of the local authority to test public
interest on implications of a change, using only the prior
notification process. A third individual commented that aquaculture
operators should be able to fully utilise existing areas without
restriction.

Conclusion

92. We recognise that shellfish trestle farmers may be required
to move trestles on occasion due to shifting sands. Furthermore, it
is recognised that tidal currents may move trestles over time. We
will consider this further in the final wording of the amendment,
including whether prior notification is required in all cases, and
consider appropriate advice within the guidance.

93.
Question 16 - Do you agree with the additional
shellfish farm trestle limits set by this class of
PDR and the
requirement for prior notification?

94. The majority of respondents (52%), agreed with this
proposal, be required, with 7% against. 42% of respondents chose
not to answer or answered "don't know".

95. There was strong support for this proposal, with supporters
stating stated that as with long line production, there needs to be
a limit to ensure there is no significant burden on carrying
capacity - and 10% within the existing planning boundary seems
reasonable and sufficient for normal operations. This would also
allow for consideration of visual impacts. Other respondents agreed
with this proposal providing prior notification is required,
particularly in conservation areas, where guidance should prompt
local authorities to seek advice from
SNH.

96. Other individuals commented that there is a caveat that
continued incremental expansion is not permitted - expansion can
only occur once, for instance, and there should be no restriction
on additional trestles within an existing boundary.

97. Those disagreeing with this proposal stated that if there
are issues relating to lines of sight or access, these should be
defined on the initial permit, which states a maximum density
within the permitted boundary. Some thought the structure of this
question conveys a fundamental lack of understanding of this
industry and tries to regularise it to fit land based norms
familiar to planning officers - under this
PDR, oyster
farmers could be prosecuted for repositioning trestles without
making a planning application.

Conclusion

98. We recommended that this
PDR is
introduced. Prior notification will allow the Local Authority to
determine whether full planning application would be required
depending upon original planning permission parameters, including
trestle density/ orientation, site location and what has been
utilised on site to date. It is the case that farmers do not always
lay the maximum allowed number of trestles during initial
development and may have permission for more. Currently it is the
case that in this situation the addition of trestles previously
permitted constitutes new development and would require full
planning permission. Introduction of this
PDR would
assist in this instance.

Boundaries

99.
Question 17 - Do you agree with the approach for
the interpretation of Part 6A fish farm boundaries?

100. The Order currently states that for the interpretation of
6A "
the area of an existing fish farm or of equipment of a fish
farm, is the area which, if the anchorage or mooring points used in
relation to that fish farm or equipment were to be connected by
straight lines, would be enclosed by such imaginary lines". We
believe that interpretation should be amended to define the area of
an existing fish farm as the area described in the existing
planning consent, allowing operators to make the most use of their
consent under
PDR.

101. The majority of respondents (59%), agreed with the above
approach, with only 14% against. 28% of respondents chose not to
answer or answered "don't know".

102. Supporters of the approach think that the interpretation,
allows for reasonable flexibility to develop the specific
characteristics of a fish farming operation within the planning
boundary, without the need for repeat modifications to the planning
consent, providing flexibility to operators.

103. One respondent stated that the area should always be the
area which, if the anchorage or mooring points used in relation to
that fish farm or equipment were to be connected by straight lines,
would be enclosed by such imaginary lines regardless of any
description. That gives clarity to the
PDR and
avoids uncertainly leading to delays.
PDR
shouldn't apply to "the area of the farm has not been previously
described", as this wouldn't be a valid planning area to which
PDR could
be applied.

104. Clear definition of fish farm boundaries in the leasing and
consenting process were requested, to consider the effect of fish
farms on access to anchorages.

105. One respondent disagreed with the approach, as the fish
farm can move its own moorings, making it a moveable planning
consent, which is undesirable.

Conclusion

106. We recommend that the definition of boundaries is changed
to allow developers full used of their consented area under
PDR.

Considerations not taken forward - for information and
comment

107.
Question 18 - Do you have any comments on the
following considerations that you would like noted?

9.1 Placement of cages greater than 100m or more than one
cage

9.2 Cleaner fish

9.3 Class 21D - Temporary Equipment.

9.4 Timescales

108. Comments received:

Placement of cages greater than 100m or more than one cage:

Need to review farm scale development and threshold limits
that trigger
EIA
screening for fish farms

Use single terminology, either pens or cages.

Cleaner Fish:

Species to be specified and consented for new development
applications

Cleaner fish added to an existing site don't benefit from
older planning permissions. The species could be included under
PDR with
prior notification.

Temporary Equipment:

3 months is acceptable and should not be extended.

Class 21D - Option to deploy a temporary spat line in the
planning boundary of an existing shellfish farm should be
retained within
PDR
legislation.

Dispensation to be given to equipment for non-medicinal sea
lice treatments

Temporary equipment for mussel spat collection could be used
for 4-5 months

Timescales:

Guidance needed or a
PDR
created for sites to be able to completely fallow and remove all
equipment without the risk of losing planning permission.

Consideration required on legal concepts of when a planning
permission will be 'spent' or 'abandoned'. If equipment
replacement of the same size, colour and design allowed under
PDR
without prior notification, and replacement will take more than 3
months, prior notification should be required.

Request further guidance in the circular, and Local planning
authorities to be consulted prior to issuing guidance

Amended legislation should clarify that
PDR
rights can only be used once.

Contentious interpretation fuels the debate on the definition
of fish farming development, and the application of s26 (6) of
the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Scottish
Ministers could use section 26(6A) of 1997 Act to make an order
defining "equipment" and "fish farming". .

Response to Comments Made Under Question 18

109. The above comments provided by stakeholders have been
noted. There was support to increase the timescale permitted for
temporary equipment from the shellfish sector. It has been
considered that increasing the temporary equipment limit, under
class 21D, from 3 months to 4-5 months to accommodate spat lines,
and the possibility that temporary spat lines will be deployed at
the same site consistently over a period of time are not in the
spirit of the temporary equipment class. There is also the risk
that that moorings will remain in place for such lines and
difficulty in overseeing this process. It is also expected that the
change in
PDR to
accommodate additional long lines of equal length could be utilised
for spat lines and allow for greater flexibility. We will consider
further whether any amendments to class 21D should be
introduced.

110. It is recognised that the stakeholders have concerns
regarding the current definition of development and the operational
issues which it can cause. The proposed amendments to permitted
development rights go someway to address these issues. It is also
recognised that removal of some equipment and fallowing of sites is
a required practice for industry. Existing conditions for fish farm
PDR require
that the development is to be carried out within 3 years of
obtaining all relevant approvals required under the class (i.e.
following prior notification). In cases where prior notification is
not required, it is for the local authority to determine whether
the time period equipment is removed for is reasonable for
operational purposes. Where operators intend to remove equipment
for a longer period of time it is good practice to consult the
local authority planning department in advance of any removal
operations taking place or as soon as possible afterwards. Removal
of all equipment from a fish farm (including sub surface equipment)
will result in an existing development being "spent" and planning
permission will be required to place either the same, different or
additional equipment in future. The demand for guidance to be
developed regarding the above, in conjunction with local
authorities, is noted and it is our intention to address these
issues in the associated amending Order guidance.

111. It is also noted that frustration with aspects of the
planning system remains. Scottish Government is considering the
current application of the planning system and assessing the case
for an alternative consenting regime.